Partly allowed

Managing Director, v. Raziya Ulavun

Kerala HC19 Oct 2022MACA/1617/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal enhanced the compensation awarded to the legal heirs of a deceased coolie. The court addressed challenges from both the bus corporation and the claimants to the quantum, ordering an increase in the award based on revised calculations for income and multiplier. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Compensation increased to total Rs. 12,09,600 plus interest; cross objection allowed; appeal dismissed.

Managing Director, Vs Raziya Ulavun — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 27TH ASWINA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 1617 OF 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 19.04.2011 IN O.P(MV) NO.120/2008 OF MOTOR

¶7

ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI

¶8

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT :-

¶9

MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 023.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC

¶11

 SRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.

¶12

RESPONDENTS / PETITIONERS :-

¶13

1RAZIYA ULUVAN, AGED 34 YEARS
W/O. DECEASED MOHAMMEDKUTTY THAYYIL,

¶14

RESIDING AT THAYYIL HOUSE, KARATHADAM,

¶15

ARIMBRA P.O., MORAYUR VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-673 638

¶16

2ABDUL MANAF, MINOR, AGED 16 YEARS
S/O. DECEASED MOHAMMEDKUTTY THAYYIL, RESIDING AT THAYYIL
HOUSE, KARATHADAM, ARIMBRA P.O., MORAYUR VILLAGE, ERNAD
TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 638

¶17

3RAHEEFA, AGED 13 YEARS,
S/O. DECEASED MOHAMMEDKUTTY THAYYIL,
RESIDING AT THAYYIL HOUSE, KARATHADAM, ARIMBRA P.O.,
MORAYUR VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 638

¶18

4ASEEKKA JAN, MINOR, AGED 7 YEARS
S/O. DECEASED MOHAMMEDKUTTY THAYYIL,
REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN AND MOTHER RAZIYA ULUVAN,
THAYYIL HOUSE, KARATHADAM, ARIMBRA P.O., MORAYUR VILLAGE,
ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-673 638

¶19

BY ADVS.SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR
SRI.P.R.SREEJITH

¶20

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON
19.10.2022, ALONG WITH CO.37/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

MACA No.1617 of 2012 & C.O.No.37 of 2022

¶22

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶26

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022/27TH ASWINA, 1944

¶27

CROSS OBJECTION NO. 37 OF 2022

¶28

IN

¶29

M.A.C.A.NO. 1617 OF 2012

¶30

IN

¶31

O.P.(MV) NO.120 OF 2008

¶32

CROSS OBJECTORS/ RES PONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 :-

¶33

1RAZIYA ULUVAN, AGED 43 YEARS
W/O. DECEASED MOHAMMEDKUTTY THAYYIL, RESIDING
AT THAYYIL HOUSE, KARATHADAM, ARIMBRA P.O.,
MORAYUR VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT,PIN-673 638

¶34

2ABDUL MANAF, AGED 25 YEARS
S/O. DECEASED MOHAMMEDKUTTY THAYYIL, RESIDING
AT THAYYIL HOUSE, KARATHADAM, ARIMBRA P.O.,
MORAYUR VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT,PIN-673 638

¶35

3RAHEEFA, AGED 22 YEARS
S/O. DECEASED MOHAMMEDKUTTY THAYYIL, RESIDING
AT THAYYIL HOUSE, KARATHADAM, ARIMBRA P.O.,
MORAYUR VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT,PIN-673 638

¶36

4ASEEKKA JAN, AGED 16 YEARS
(MINOR), S/O. DECEASED MOHAMMEDKUTTY THAYYIL,
REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN AND MOTHER RAZIYA
ULUVAN, THAYYIL HOUSE, KARATHADAM, ARIMBRA
P.O., MORAYUR VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-673 638

¶37

BY ADV SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR

¶38

MACA No.1617 of 2012 & C.O.No.37 of 2022

¶39

¶40

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT :-

¶41

MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶42

KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION , FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001

¶43

BY ADV SHRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC

¶44

THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 19.10.2022, ALONG WITH MACA.1617/2012,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶45

¶46

MACA No.1617 of 2012 & C.O.No.37 of 2022

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

Dated this the 19^th day of October, 2022

¶49

This appeal on hand is filed by the 2^nd respondent in the Original Petition filed as O.P.(M.V).No.120/2008 before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and the cross objectors are the claimants before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience the parties to the appeal and Cross Objection will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners and the respondents in accordance with their status before the Tribunal.

¶50

In the appeal as well as in the cross objection, the main challenge raised is against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants seek for reduction of the quantum of compensation whereas the cross objectors seeks for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Averments were raised in the Original Petition to the effect that the rider of the Motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL 4/S 8794 who was returning after purchasing medicines from Manjeri was knocked down by a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KL 15/4444 due to

¶51

MACA No.1617 of 2012 & C.O.No.37 of 2022

¶52

5

¶53

the rash and negligent driving by its driver. He sustained injuries and succumbed to those later during the course of treatment at Malabar Hospital, Manjeri. Alleging that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus by its driver and claiming a total sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation, the above Original Petition was filed before the Tribunal by the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased.

¶54

The driver and owner of the KSRTC bus were arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the Original Petition. 1^st and 2^nd respondents entered appearance through a counsel but did not file any written statement and contest the original petition. The petitioners adduced evidence as Exts.A1 to A6. On appreciation of the evidence as above, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus and also entitlement for the petitioners for getting compensation. Rs.4,76,000/- was arrived at as the sum payable as compensation and the 1^st respondent was directed to deposit the same with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realization.

¶55

MACA No.1617 of 2012 & C.O.No.37 of 2022

¶56

6

¶57

The challenge of the appellant, the 2^nd respondent in MACA No.1617/2012 was that Rs.3,500/- was fixed by the Tribunal and it is on the lower side. According to him, the job as well as the monthly income of the deceased were not proved by the petitioners and therefore the Tribunal is justified in fixing the same notionally. The learned counsel canvassed for fixation of Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income and reassessment of the compensation on its basis. It is also pointed out that towards loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and loss of estate also meagre sums have been awarded by the Tribunal and interference is called for.

¶58

5. According to the learned counsel for the cross objectors

¶59

Rs.3,500/- has been considered as the monthly income for the purpose of computation of compensation for loss of dependency and that is too low. He canvassed for a fixation proportionate to the monthly income fixed by the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236], in the case of a Coolie worker who had been a victim of a motor accident in the year 2004. The accident in question being occurred

¶60

MACA No.1617 of 2012 & C.O.No.37 of 2022

¶61

7

¶62

in the year 2007, it is appropriate to take Rs.6,000/- as the monthly income.

¶63

As directed by the Constitution Bench in National

¶64

Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], the deceased who was self employed and aged below 40 years is entitled to have 40% addition to his monthly income in consideration of future prospects. The multiplier has been correctly taken by the Tribunal as 16. 1/3^rd amount has been wrongly deducted from the monthly income towards personal expenditure, liable to meet by him, had he been alive. The deceased being survived by his wife and three children, 1/4^th ought to have been deducted. Correct multiplier applicable being 16, is also adopted. When 40% is added to Rs.6,000/- and 1/4^th deducted therefrom, Rs.6,300/- is arrived at. In the assessment with the above modified factors, Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.6,300 x 12 x 16) is found payable under the head loss of dependency. Rs.4,48,000/- being the sum stands already awarded by the Tribunal, when adjusted, Rs.7,61,600/- is arrived at as the additional compensation payable.

¶65

MACA No.1617 of 2012 & C.O.No.37 of 2022

¶66

¶67

Under the head loss of consortium, the Tribunal has

¶68

awarded only Rs.10,000/- against Rs.44,000/- for which each of the petitioners are entitled to. Petitioners being 4 in numbers, Rs.1,76,000/- in total is payable under the head loss of consortium. Rs.10,000/- stands awarded by the Tribunal, when adjusted in the sum arrived at, Rs.1,66,000/- is payable as additional compensation. Under the heads funeral expenses and loss of estate, the petitioners respectively are entitled to get Rs.16,500/- each . Rs.3,000/- and Rs.5,000/- being the sums stand awarded under each of the heads, the petitioners are entitled to get Rs.13,500/- and Rs.11,500/respectively as additional compensation under those heads. Compensation cannot be awarded both under the heads loss of love and affection and loss of consortium. Therefore, Rs.10,000/- stands awarded under the head love and affection needs to be adjusted in the additional compensation now arrived at as payable.

¶69

When calculated in the above manner, the cross objectors are entitled to get Rs.9,42,600- (Rupees Nine lakh Forty Two thousand and six hundred only). The said amount would carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the

¶70

MACA No.1617 of 2012 & C.O.No.37 of 2022

¶71

¶72

Original Petition till the date of realization. The second respondent, the appellant in MACA No.1617/2012 shall pay the said amount arrived at as additional compensation with interest fixed as above within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶73

The cross objection stands allowed and appeal stands

¶74

dismissed.

¶75

Sd/- MARY JOSEPH SMA JUDGE

Managing Director, v. Raziya Ulavun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Managing Director, v. Raziya Ulavun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prejith Kumar Vs P.N.Narayanan Namboothiri

Vijayalakshmi Vs Diavis

Surendran Vs Anilkumar

Raziya Uluvan Vs Managing Director

Praveen Kumar T Vs Shaji T.G.

Latheef Vs Noorjafan